Pages

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

(Or is it too late?)

We do hear a
tremendous amount about “our democracy” these days. For instance, we keep being
told that Brexit is “implementing the democratic will of the people”, or that
refusing a second Scottish Referendum on independence is “undemocratic” – but
this country has never been governed by referenda – and nor should it ever be!

What we are
supposed to have in the UK is a “Representative Democracy”. That means that we elect MPs to represent
their constituencies, just as we elect local councillors to represent their
wards. These people are supposed to
represent everybody in their constituency, not just those that happened to vote
for them.

One would
hope that our MPs also realise that they have a duty beyond that – they should try
to do what is best for the country, even if that might conflict with what is
best for their constituency – and they should also try to do what is best for
the world and for humanity as a whole, even if that might not be in the best
interests of the country! To put it more
simply, we should really elect the people that we think or believe have the
most wisdom, integrity and decency, regardless of any petty (or party)
political interests or persuasions. However, the public is constantly being
persuaded and propagandised, by all and sundry but particularly by political
parties and the media, to vote according to a host of other, mainly spurious
criteria.

Quite a while
ago (1878 to be exact), W. S. Gilbert poked a bit of fun at the political
establishment, in Sir Joseph Porter’s song in HMS Pinafore:-

“I grew so rich that I
was sent

By a pocket borough into parliament.

I always voted at my
party’s call,

And I never thought of thinking for myself
at all.”

Now, we don’t
have “pocket” or “rotten” boroughs any more – or do we? There are certainly still some constituencies
where a monkey might get elected if they happened to belong to the right party.
However, it’s the last two lines that are more to the point. “Party politics” is the biggest problem with
our so-called democracy.

It is a fact,
in this country, in all elections (apart from those for the European
Parliament) that we actually vote for the person, not for the party. A lot of people don’t seem to realise this –
probably because almost all the media and almost every political party keeps on
saying (e.g.) “Vote Conservative” or “Vote Labour” without even mentioning the
actual candidate.

Of course, as
a result, the great majority of people probably do vote along party lines and
this has been the case for many years. Just
think about it. You do not need to belong to any political party to stand for
election – and, if Fred Bloggs is elected as a Conservative but, after the
election, he has a major bust-up with the Tories and is either kicked out or
leaves the party voluntarily (yes, it does happen – Douglas Carswell is a good
example!), he does not necessarily lose his seat, nor is there any statutory
requirement for him to stand down, or for there to be a new by-election. The seat belongs to him, not to the party –
and that is how it should be.

I doubt very
much if any politician actually agrees with absolutely everything that any political
party stands for, or even everything in its election manifesto but, of course,
in order to be selected by any party as “their” candidate, they have to
convince the party that they do.
Inevitably, this leads to a certain amount of hypocrisy (or even
dishonesty) and, once selected and elected, it then follows that the most
hypocritical (or dishonest) politicians are the ones who are most likely to win
favour and advancement within the party system.
Is it really surprising that “party” politics breeds corruption?

How many
times, in interviews (especially on programmes like the BBC’s Question Time) do
we hear senior politicians refusing to say what they actually think and merely
spouting the party line on any number of important issues? If we can’t find out what politicians
actually believe, how can we possibly make any reasonable judgement about how
to vote? Is it any wonder that more and
more people are becoming thoroughly disillusioned and frustrated by the way
that politics is conducted in this country?

It is also quite
illogical to suggest or to assume that any party winning an overall majority at
an election actually has some kind of “mandate” to implement its manifesto. Apart from the fact that things change over
time, it may well be that a majority of the electorate simply do not agree with
a particular aspect of a manifesto. To reiterate: it is the duty of all elected
politicians to try to do what is best for the world, their country and their
constituency, in that order, regardless of party politics. All we really want
is for them to be honest about it.

The idea that
a referendum constitutes a “mandate” to act accordingly is even more
farcical. Yes, conducted sensibly, a
referendum might well indicate what the public want – but that does not mean
that the public are right! Surely, it is
part of the job of politicians to lead public opinion, not merely to follow
it. One has only to look at the sheer
hypocrisy (or dishonesty) of all those politicians who campaigned to remain in
the EU and then changed their minds after the referendum (mainly for party
political reasons) to see how stupid, undemocratic and corrupt the system has
become.

Corrupt? Yes, absolutely! Just look at the recent scandal about
election expenses. Why do parties (or people) spend so much money during
elections? It is because they think
(they know) that it will buy them votes.
It does work. If it didn’t, they
wouldn’t do it. As a result, it is the
richest – those who have and are prepared to spend the most money – who are
most likely to be elected. Is this “democratic”? Is it surprising that we see so much
corruption? Surely, it should (must) be
a fundamental tenet of our electoral system that every candidate be treated
equally and fairly, and be able to compete on a “level playing field”.

In order to
restore some vestige of true democracy in our country, first of all, we need a
fair degree of electoral reform. This is
not a new idea. For example, many people
have been arguing for proportional representation for years – but this is
definitely not the answer. Proportion of
what? The problem with most forms of PR
is that they actually strengthen the party system. What we really need is politicians who
actually say and do what they honestly believe to be right and in the best
interests of us all.

Is that
possible? Will it ever happen? I doubt it – but here are a few ideas that
might just give some food for thought . . .

Our
first-past-the-post, one-man-one-vote electoral “system” is actually pretty
fair and straightforward. There are
certainly strong arguments in favour of a preferential voting method but that
might become unnecessarily complicated.
It seems to me that it is not really our voting system that needs reform;
it is the whole manner in which we conduct our elections.

What if . . . candidates in elections were
not allowed to declare allegiance to any political party? Each candidate simply prepares their own
“manifesto” (let’s say 2 sides of A4 or about 1500 words) and this is published
in all local press, on public websites and printed (at taxpayers’ expense),
with a copy distributed to every household in the constituency. That is all.

What if . . . it were to cost candidates
nothing to stand for election. Yes, we
do need some measures to prevent stupid or pointless candidates from
standing. Perhaps we should increase the
number of nominations required, increase the deposit and increase the
percentage of the poll required to save the deposit. No great changes there –
but, apart from this deposit . . .

What if . . . it were made illegal for any
candidate (or party, or agent, or supporter) to spend any money at all in
connection with an election. No adverts,
no posters, no notice boards, nothing!
Nor should it be allowed for any other person to canvas or to speak on
behalf of any candidate. Only the
candidates themselves should be allowed to canvas door-to-door or to speak at
public meetings or hustings.

What if . . . (during the period of “purdah”) the media, including the BBC, were
required to give each candidate equal amounts of coverage and equal
opportunities to speak to the public?
For example, if BBC Question Time were to be broadcast from York, the
only people on the panel should be the actual candidates for the York
constituency. How else will the public
even get to know who the candidates are, never mind assess their suitability? Well . . .

What if . . . it were incumbent upon each
returning officer to organise a certain number of public “hustings” meetings
around the constituency, at which every candidate would have an equal amount of
time to present themselves and to answer questions.

And then, what if . . . as a result of all these
changes, we were to end up with a parliament that consisted of significant
numbers of independent members, quite a lot of small parties, no party with an
overall majority and little chance of forming any meaningful coalition? Would
that lead to weak or ineffective government?

It’s
interesting that even members of the government have a tendency to say that it
is a good thing to have a “strong opposition”.
No it isn’t. What is important is
for there simply to be strong opposition. The idea of coalition government isn’t so bad
– lots of countries have them – and, in effect, this gives an element of opposition
from within the government. However, it
doesn’t have to be like that.

Just as we,
the voters, don’t elect parties, we elect people as MPs; similarly, we the
electorate do not elect the government.
There is absolutely no reason why parliament shouldn’t simply elect its
own “government”, including prime minister, other ministers, cabinet and other
officers, along with select committees and other working parties. If we were to
move with the times and adopt an effective, electronic voting system in the
House of Commons, this could be done in a matter of hours, certainly in less
than a day, on the first day of each new parliamentary year. Parliament could
even elect its own “opposition” too! (Electronic
voting might also make the House of Commons much more efficient!)

What if . . . we didn’t have General
Elections at all (except, maybe, in an emergency or a constitutional crisis)? Why not have elections spread throughout the
year? Let’s say, if we had 600 MPs, we
could elect each one for a fixed term of 3 years. That would mean 200 “by”-elections each year,
which amounts to about 4 each week – ideally in different parts of the country. This would enable and encourage more
consistency, fewer extreme changes of policy and a longer-term, less polarised and
divisive approach to government and to politics in general.

What if . . . we were to completely outlaw the practice of “whipping” in
parliament – and make it illegal to either threaten or to offer any incentive
(=bribe) to any member of parliament to vote in any particular way?

We could go
on forever with the “What ifs” – but what else could we do to clean up
politics, to get rid of corruption and dishonesty and to allow the “people”,
all of us, the chance to be heard, to feel that we can make a difference and
that our views are properly respected in a truly “democratic” way?

Let’s start
with the House of Lords. There is a
general and growing consensus now that our “second chamber” does need
reform. Many people would argue for a
directly elected second chamber and they do have a pretty good case. Do we really want even more elections? Well,
it could be quite simple if we elected our “peers” at the same time and as part
of the same process as when electing members of the House of Commons. One elected peer for each constituency. This would certainly get rid of the
hereditary peers and the bishops and it would also get rid of all those
undemocratically “appointed” peers. (Most of whom are “party” politicians!)

This would
also be a good place to start getting rid of the inherently corrupt and
undemocratic “party system”. Let each
candidate for a peerage stand as a complete independent, without any declared
party allegiance. Ideally, they should be elected according to their expertise
in a particular field and/or the contribution they have made to society.

It is always
a good idea to work from the bottom upwards as well as from the top downwards. If we are going to try to get rid of (or at
least decontaminate) the party system, then the other good place to start would
be in local elections – parish, town, borough, city and, in due course, county
and regional elections. Yes, quite a few
of the “what ifs” listed above might very well sound like mere wishful thinking
but there is already one part of the British Isles that actually uses many of
these conditions and rules in their electoral system – the Channel Islands –
and I don’t think that channel islanders complain much about any democratic
deficit! OK, the Channel Islands are
pretty small but most parishes and many towns in the UK are even smaller. Party politics and the power of money to buy
votes are an abomination in local politics and the sooner we get rid of them
the better.

The other
major “democratic” issue affecting us all at the moment is devolution. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have
each been granted their own assemblies, with tax-raising powers and a fair
degree of autonomy. As a result, mainly because of the Brexit issue, there is a
danger of all these three regions striving for independence from Westminster
and the consequent break-up of the UK. What
about England?

In England, we
don’t have our own regional parliament at all.
Projects like the “Northern Powerhouse” may be a half-hearted attempt to
address this “democratic deficit” but will they work? If we must have regional assemblies and more devolution
in the UK (not at all a bad idea) then why not divide England into 4 or 5
equal-sized regions and give each their own regional assemblies on the same
lines as those in Scotland and Wales? “Federal”
systems like this already exist in the USA, Germany and various other countries
– why not in the UK?

I speak as a
staunch Yorkshireman (born in Lancashire but conceived in the north of
Scotland, with Greek, French, Scottish and mainly Viking ancestry). I am quite happy to describe myself as
British (or even as European) but the one thing I will never admit to being is
English. (Not because I dislike England
or the English – but simply because I am definitely not English.)

However,
that’s just me. I hope we all abhor
discrimination of any kind, but the world (including the UK) is, sadly,
becoming increasingly nationalistic and intolerant of all those people who
might be described as “foreigners”! It
is well worth noting that, under the Equality Act of 2010, according to the
government’s own website, it is against the law to discriminate against anyone
because of . . ."race, including colour, nationality,
ethnic or national origin”.

How is it
possible that we have a government, political parties and many campaigners and
activists who are not only breaking the law itself but actually encouraging and
inciting others to do so as well?
Discrimination on the grounds of nationality is every bit as stupid,
pointless and inherently immoral as racial discrimination!

Nationalism
is one of the great scourges of modern society and it seems to be on the
increase all over the world, notably and worryingly in the USA, the UK and in
many parts of Europe. The other “ism” (not
entirely unconnected with nationalism) that is creating serious problems in our
society is “populism”. There may be many
and various reasons for both of these insidious trends but there is really only
one answer - and that is Education!

We have to
teach our children to think! As long as
we have an education system that is obsessed with testing and examinations -
requiring all our children to jump through the same hoops and focusing almost
entirely on the regurgitation of facts and the demonstration of techniques – we
are never going to teach people to think, to question, to engage in rational
debate, to try to understand, to be considerate, to work together, to help each
other instead of just competing with each other, to make the most of their
natural and innate talents and, most of all, to respect and listen to those who
might think otherwise. That is the
biggest threat of all to our democracy!

Sunday, 1 February 2015

Why on earth do we need televised debates between leaders of political parties?

Think about
it! Less than 0.02% of the population
are actually able to vote for any of the people involved in the debate! We all know what they are going to say because we've heard it before, ad nauseam. All they ever do is blame each other for the
state of the country and spout the old, familiar party propaganda – always trimmed
to the most simplistic sound-bites possible, all carefully engineered to try to
attract the populist vote. Were told
that the TV debates are intended to “engage” the public in the political
process – but this kind of posturing charade is precisely what turns voters off
and what brings politics and politicians into disrepute.

Elections should be fair!
Every candidate should have the same chance to get his/her viewpoint
across. Every candidate should have the
same amount of exposure and publicity. If
we really want to have fair and genuinely democratic elections, then why can’t
the BBC record a public debate in every constituency – involving all the
candidates in that constituency? With
today’s technology, these recorded debates could be made available on a designated
election channel in such a way that voters could view their own local debate as
often as they like and at any time during the weeks prior to the election. That way, we could all assess the qualities,
views and policies of those candidates for whom we are actually able to vote.

Disenchantment and disengagement with politics,
politicians and the political process are major problems in today’s society – and
the media (including the BBC) are as much to blame for this as the politicians
themselves. It’s time for a new kind of
politics!

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

In no way would I dream of belittling or denigrating all
the recent WW1 commemorations. It is
absolutely right that we should remember (we must never forget!) all the
tragedy and sacrifice of that terrible war – and many of the commemorations
were very thoughtful and moving – BUT . . .

Remembering is not enough! Yes, it is good to see all those presidents,
prime ministers and royalty from various nations laying wreaths and making
speeches. Perhaps it might have been a bit more meaningful if these paragons of
wisdom, all these great and godly leaders of our supposedly civilised world, had
actually set aside just an hour or so of their precious time to sit down round
a table to try to think of ways of preventing all the wars that are going on
now and those that are likely to flare up in the future.

In today’s paper, after all the articles and pictures of
candle-lit services and ceremonies at cemeteries, there appeared another
article, telling us how the UK’s government is “reviewing” the sale of £8bn worth
of tanks and weaponry to the Israeli government “in light of the conflict in
Gaza”!

Am I really being too cynical? Wars can be very useful. They create a lot of employment and they bring
in a lot of money. The weapons trade is
one of the world’s most lucrative industries. What would our economy look like
without the income from the arms trade?
What would our unemployment figures look like if all our soldiers,
sailors and airmen were out of a job? Wars are a useful political tool too –
they keep the proletariat scared and submissive and deflect attention from issues
that really matter, like climate change, food, water and energy supply, pollution,
uncontrolled population growth and the effects of rampant consumerism.

The United Nations was a good idea at the time but,
having been pretty well emasculated by Bush & Blair, it now has no teeth,
no power and little authority. It is
high time it was either revived in a new and more effective form or replaced by
something rather better. Surely it is
not beyond the wit of man to devise some kind of global police force to prevent
wars from happening and to control the spread and use of weapons. Do our world leaders want this? Apparently not!

The European Union was never, originally, conceived as an
economic or political union. It was
intended, primarily, to prevent war and preserve peace in Europe after
WW2. In that respect, for nigh on 70
years, it has been extremely successful.
That is what we should also remember at this time.

It is only by working together that we can hope to achieve
and preserve peace, both in Europe and throughout the world. The rise of “Separatism” and “Nationalism”
across Europe and elsewhere is one of the most worrying trends of our time. Not
just in the middle east and in Ukraine but also in Spain, France, Belgium –
even in the UK and in Scotland – we see increasing support for Nationalist and
Separatist parties.

Perhaps it is time for everyone to read (or re-read) George
Orwell’s “1984”. Is that really the sort
of society we want? We’re getting closer
all the time!

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Is
your “Nationality” an important part of your personal identity? Does it really matter? For some, obviously, the answer is “Yes”.

I’m
only partly Scottish. (A pretty small part at that but I’m told I can trace my ancestry
directly back to Mary Queen of Scots, the Colquhoun Clan and the Bell’s Whisky
family!) The rest of me is a mixture of Greek,
a bit of French and a fair amount of Viking. I consider myself a Yorkshire man –
although, by a twist of circumstance, I was actually born in Lancashire. If that is ever held against me, I point out
that I was conceived in Ross & Cromarty, so my heart is in Scotland! I would certainly never describe myself as
English but I am quite happy to be British.

What
has this to do with anything? Well, there must be countless millions of people,
all over the world, who don’t actually live in Scotland but who genuinely
consider themselves to be Scottish. If
the so-called Scottish “Nationalists” succeed in their barmy and selfish campaign
for an independent Scotland, do they realise that they will actually be
depriving all their compatriots (and many of we British) of their true nationality
and identity?

Why? Well, if Scotland becomes an independent state
(i.e. nation) then it will have to issue new Scottish passports to all its
citizens. (What a waste of time and money!) Not only that – but the existing UK/British
passport will also become defunct, because there will no longer be a UK or a “Britain”. I have nothing against the Welsh or Northern Irish
but there is nothing of those nations in my ancestry – and I’m certainly not prepared
to be called English!

The
“Yes” campaign will say that this is not really a problem. They will say that there is no reason why all
these millions of ex-pat Scottish folk shouldn’t be able to apply for Scottish “Nationality”
and thus acquire their new Scottish passports.
If that is the case (and this is the crux of the matter) then why not
let all these non-resident but truly “Scottish” people establish their Scottish
nationality before the referendum, so that they can also cast their votes? The answer to that is simple: if Alex Salmond
and his so-called “Nationalists” did that, they know they would lose, by miles!

And
what about the rest of we British? We
are also being threatened with a significant change to our own nationality –
why do we not have any say in the matter?

The
whole referendum is an ill-considered, immoral, unconstitutional and undemocratic
farce! Cameron should never have agreed
to it and it should never be allowed to happen in this shape or form. This is not Ukraine! Anyone with any common sense will vote to
keep the UK together!

Having said all that, there is, perhaps, an even more important point to make . . .I was brought up to believe that Racism is wrong. In fact I think most people would now agree that Racism is wrong. If it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their race, why is it OK to discriminate against people because of their Nationality? I think "Nationalism" is every bit as bad as "Racism" - and it probably causes even more wars than religion!So - come on you Scottish "Nationalists"! Think again - all you are doing is losing friends and making enemies!

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

A bit of Christmas jollity for string players – “EINE
KLEINE CHRISTMAS MUSIK” – four fun-packed movements for String Quartet (or
String Orchestra). Click on the icon to the right of this blog to view the full score.

Do have a look at this piece of Christmas frivolity! It's ideal for busking, or for light hearted
Christmas concerts – you could even use a movement as an amusing encore during
the festive season. Even the page turns
are fun! Email me if you would like the parts – I can either send them to you by email or post you a full, printed set (with score). All I ask in return is a small donation to the “Andante
Project” (supporting musical charities and promoting music education in the UK).

I hardly need to explain that this is based on
Mozart’s original, with countless subtle (and not-so-subtle) references to
carols and Christmas music. I arranged
the first 3 movements years ago but only recently did I figure out a way to make
the last movement work!So – the
complete 4 movement piece is finally published and available either in print - all
four parts and full score for only £15 + £1.50 p&p (UK only) - or as pdf files by email for as little as £10 (or a bit more if you like!). Please order by email – xen@xenmus.net

Sunday, 28 April 2013

Amongst
the hottest topics of the day are, undoubtedly, unemployment, economic growth
and the welfare bill.There might be at
least a grain of truth in Ed Milliband’s latest pronouncements on these issues
but, so far, all we have heard from both sides is, as usual, a lot of political
posturing aimed, primarily, at attracting voters.

One
of the charities I work for recently submitted an application for government
funding for a project that would have created five new jobs – at a cost to the
taxpayer of well below the minimum wage for each job. We were refused on the grounds that our
project wasn't of “high enough priority”.

Now,
here’s a thought! Surely it is not
beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme whereby money is made available to registered
charities to enable them to employ people who are on benefits. Why give money to people for doing nothing,
even when they want to work, when that same money could be paid to those same people
for doing useful work for good causes and for public benefit?

We
keep hearing that it is the private sector that must create all the new jobs
that we've lost in the public sector and that we now so desperately need. What about the third sector, the Charitable
sector? Without a doubt there is plenty
of useful and beneficial work that needs to be done, throughout the country – and
such a scheme could result in a massive reduction of unemployment. Pay these new charity employees a “living
wage”, incorporate strong elements of training into the scheme – we’re onto a
real winner here!

Come
on all you politicians, just think about it!
There is more to life (and more to the economy) than just business and
growth. Charities contribute immensely
to the quality of all our lives and, in many cases, they are now being expected
to do the government’s job.

It wouldn't cost the taxpayer a penny more to introduce such a scheme. It could actually save
money – and all our lives, especially those of the poorest, would be so much
the better for it.

.

The final “Andante Report”

.

NEW!!! – Eine Kleine Christmas Music

Four fun-packed movements for String 4tte (or String Orchestra).View the score above – parts available either by email (only £10) or printed set by post (£15 + p&p).Please order by email. Proceeds to the “Andante” project.